Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERALD WILSON, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2839-JES-JAC CDCR # B93800, 12 ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS vs. [ECF No. 4]; 14 INSTITUTION FACILITY DENTAL 15 (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION DEP’T, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 16 DENTAL DEP’T, FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEES 17 REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. §1914(a) Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff Gerald Wilson, currently incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility 21 (“RJD”), is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 22 ECF No. 1. On March 16, 2026, the Court dismissed the action because Plaintiff failed to 23 either pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma paupers (“IFP”). See ECF No. 3. The 24 Court gave Plaintiff until April 30, 2026, to satisfy the filing fee requirement. See id. at 3. 25 On March 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed the IFP motion, presently before the Court. See ECF 26 No. 4. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion; and 27 DISMISSES Plaintiff’s civil action, without prejudice, for failure to pay filing fees 28 required by 28 U.S.C. §1914(a). 1 I. IFP MOTION 2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a failure to pay the entire 5 fee at the time of filing only if the court grants the Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP pursuant 6 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 7 cf. Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here [an] 8 IFP application is denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the 9 fee[s] [a]re paid.”). 10 To proceed IFP, prisoners must “submit[] an affidavit that includes a statement of 11 all assets [they] possess[,]” as well as “a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account 12 statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding 13 the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 14 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). Using this financial information, the court “assess[es] and when funds 15 exist, collect[s], … an initial partial filing fee,” which is “calculated based on ‘the average 16 monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account’ or ‘the average monthly balance in the 17 prisoner’s account’ over a 6-month term; the remainder of the fee is to be paid in ‘monthly 18 payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s 19 account.” Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2)). In short, while 20 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing upfront, 21 they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. See Bruce v. 22 Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 23 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 24 // 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of 27 $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons 28 1 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is incomplete because he has not included a certified 2 copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing 3 of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. Without a certified 4 trust account statement, the Court is unable to assess whether any initial partial filing fee 5 may be required to initiate the prosecution of Plaintiff’s case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 6 Therefore, the IFP motion is DENIED. 7 II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 8 Accordingly, the Court: 9 (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 4) and 10 DISMISSES the action without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) & 11 1914(a); and 12 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff one, final opportunity to satisfy the filing fee 13 requirement. The Court grants Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from 14 the date of this Order to have this case reopened by either: 15 a. Prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee 16 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) in full; or 17 b. Completing and filing a Motion and Declaration in Support of 18 Motion to Proceed IFP that complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), 19 (2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2.b.2 20 21 22 2 Plaintiff is again cautioned that if he chooses to re-open the case by either prepaying the full $405 civil filing fee, or by submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint 23 will be subject to an initial review and may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays the full filing fee at once, or is granted IFP status and is obligated to pay the full filing fee in installments. See Lopez 25 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126‒27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not 26 only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); 27 see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a 28 I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: May 26, 2026 4 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 oe